3 ms·

mmmh, I don't think this really holds up. They do it with Netflix/Steam because they have to, because if they did not those services would choke bandwidth for

by rland 7y ago

mmmh, I don't think this really holds up. They do it with Netflix/Steam because they have to, because if they did not those services would choke bandwidth for everyone. With your Netflix example, there are maybe a dozen players with this type of arrangement -- it is the exception to the rule and has more to do with physical limitations of the network than political control. With AMP/non-amp websites, there are hundreds of millions of separate players, and no physical need to discriminate (my neighbor's network performance is identical whether I look at 2mb websites vs. 300kb websites) I believe there is a fundamental difference between the two -- google's play is about control, not physical limitations.

dwild 7y ago
> I believe there is a fundamental difference between the two -- google's play is about control, not physical limitations. Control of what? The search result are from Google, they already have control over them. The existence of AMP doesn't make you go to Google (except if AMP is actually superior, but then any search provider can provide it too, just like Cloudflare does it now).